[jacquesm]

No, you can't. See, that's where you are just wrong: when you don't respect the boundaries an open source project sets that you want to contribute to then you are a net negative.

Restricting this is their right, and it is not for you to attempt to overrule that right. Besides the fact that you do not oversee the consequences it also makes you an asshole.

They're not asking for you to write standing on your head, they are asking for you to author your contributions yourself.

[orf]

They are asking me to author my contributions in a way that they approve of. The essence of the request is the same as asking someone to author them whilst standing on their head.

Except they don’t, won’t and can’t control that: the very request is insulting.

I’ll make a change any way I choose, upright, sideways, using AI. My choice. Not theirs.

Their choice is to accept it or reject it based purely on the change itself, because that’s all there is.

[eschaton]

If you’re going to lie and say there was no LLM involved, what else are you going to lie about? Copying code from another codebase with incompatible license terms, perhaps?

I would say people should be wary of any contributions whatsoever from a filthy fucking liar.

[orf]

> what else are you going to lie about?

Nothing? Everything? Does it fucking matter? Assigning trust across a boundary like this is stupid, and that’s my point.

Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”?

That’s on you for stupidly assigning any trust to the author of the change. It’s the internet: nobody knows you’re a dog.

[kuschku]

> Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”?

At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge.

[orf]

> At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge.

Sure, put out an international search warrant for xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx.

[kuschku]

Please stop embarrassing yourself, that's unnecessary.

Many major projects now require a signed DCO with a real name. That can be a nickname if you have a reasonable online presence under that name, but generally it has to identify you as an individual.

So you wouldn't sign it as "xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx", but as "Tom Forbes (orf)".

And even if there won't be direct legal consequences, it'd certainly affect your ability to contribute to this or other projects in the future.

[duskdozer]

So, "might makes right", essentially?

[orf]

No, just a normal reaction to someone trying to force their beliefs on you.

[pmarreck]

Instead of arguing for violating the boundaries of a "slow, bespoke" no-LLM project, you can simply start one that enjoys all the benefits of LLMs by NOT having that boundary. Very simple solution.

[duskdozer]

You can choose not to contribute instead of intentionally violating their boundaries.

[orf]

Their boundaries. If they don’t want to accept the code, cool. Nobody is forcing them to, and I respect that.

But if they can’t enforce their boundaries, because they can’t tell the difference between AI code and non-AI code without being told, then their boundaries they made up are unenforceable nonsense.

About as nonsense and enforceable as asking me to code upside down.

[jacquesm]

I'll make this blunt: if you're a guy then half the population is not capable of 'enforcing their boundaries' against you, more so if you count children. The problem you seem to have is to think that if someone is not capable of enforcing their boundaries that they are not allowed to have those boundaries and that it is your god given right to do whatever the F* you want just because you can. That's not how the world works, nor is it how it should work.

Boundaries - of all kinds - are not unenforceable nonsense, they are rights that you willingly and knowingly violate.

[duskdozer]

So we're back to might makes right then: "you can't stop me, so I'll do whatever I want to you."

[pmarreck]

> author your contributions yourself

This is such an easily refuted assertion. Tell me, if something is wrong with the submitted code, who or what is responsible? If it's not "the LLM", then your opinion makes zero sense. The responsible party is always a human; therefore the responsible party rightfully deserves the credit whether it succeeds or fails.

[hijnksforall956]

I am authoring my contributions, using Clause Code as a tool. It doesn't make me an asshole.

If the maintainers don't want to accept it, fine. Someone will eventually fork and advance and we move on. The Uncles can continue to play in their no AI playground, and show each other how nice their code is.

The world is moving on from the "AI is bad" crowd.

[justin66]

Forking the code can be perfectly reasonable, with this or any other disagreement about policy. The main point of contention in this thread is whether you ought to lie about having used an LLM. I agree with Jacques: doing something like that would make you an asshole.